Page 1

PLANNING COMMITTEE

08/08/2019

Application Address 74 The Grove, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 2HD

Proposal Erect 3-storey building containing 3 maisonettes and 1 flat. Erect bin & cycle store. Form parking area to front with communal gardens to rear. Amended Plans received 02/01, 28/03, 12/04 & 01/05/2019

Application Number 8/18/3129/FUL

Applicant Mr Alexander Addis

Agent Mr Matt Stevens

Date Application Valid 14 November 2018

Decision Due Date 9 January 2019

Extension of Time date

(if applicable)

31 May 2019

Ward Commons

Recommendation Grant in accordance with the recommendation details

within the report.

Reason for Referral to Planning Committee

This application is brought to the Planning Committee under the terms of the previous Christchurch Borough Council constitution following consultation with the Committee Chairman due to the number of objections received where the officer recommendation is for approval.

1 Description of Development

2 Planning consent is sought for demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 3-storey building containing 2 X 2 bed maisonettes, 1 x 3 bed maisonette, anda two bedroom flat in the roofspace. Erect bin & cycle store. Form parkingarea to front with communal gardens to rear.

3 The applicant has provided the following information.

• Ecological Appraisal including phase 2 Badger, Bat and Reptile surveys

• Design and Access Statement

• Flood Risk Assessment

Page 2

• Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment

• Means of access

• Materials

4 The original application submission included two dormers in the elevation

facing no.76. Amended plans were submitted showing a single dormer in the front elevation facing The Grove. The flat in the roof space is served by the dormer in the front roof slope and full height opening doors with a Juliet balcony in the rear elevation. Three rooflight windows in the elevation facing no.76 serve a stairwell and the kitchen and living room of the first floor flat, and two further roof lights in the elevation facing no.72 serve a bedroom and a

Existing dwelling

Proposed development

Difference

Site Area: (ha) 0.134 0.134 NA

Use Residential

1 X 3 bed bungalow

Residential

3 X 2 bed & 1 X 3 bed flats/maisonettes

+3 units

Approximate eaves &

ridge Height (m)

Eaves 3.3

Ridge 6.9

Eaves 5.2

Ridge 9.7

+1.9

+2.8

Approximate Depth (m) 11.3 – 11.6 Ground floor

11.4 - 16.3

First floor

8.8 - 14.7

+0.1 - 4.7

Approximate Width (m) 9.9 11.5 +1.6

Distance from site boundary

With no.72

1.4-1.8

With no.76

3

With no.72

1.2-1.8

With no.76

1.2

-1.8

No. of Storeys 1 3 +2

Parking Spaces 2

4 +2

No. of Residential Units 1 4 +3

Materials Walls

Grey painted render

Roof

Concrete tiles

Walls

Brick and render

Roof

Slate roof

Page 3

bathroom.

5 A detached 5m x 3m flat roofed bin and cycle store is proposed approximately 6m to the rear of the proposed dwellings. The bin and cycle store would be constructed approximately 0.8m above the existing ground level and it would be accessed from the rear patio area via a ramp. A handrail and balustrade would enclose the ramp and access to the bin and cycle store and a raised planting area is proposed parallel to the common boundary with no.76.

6 Key Issues

7 The main considerations involved with this application are:

• The principle of the development

• Impact on character and surrounding area

• Impact on residential amenity

• Parking provision

• Landscaping & amenity space

• Heathlands mitigation

• Other Issues These matters will be discussed in the planning assessment below.

8 Planning Policies

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan for an area, except where material considerations indicate otherwise.

Development Plan: The development plan in this case comprises the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan 2014 and saved policies of the Christchurch Local Plan 2001. Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy 2014

KS1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development

KS2 Settlement Hierarchy

KS4 Housing Provision in Christchurch and East Dorset

KS12 Parking Provision

HE2 Design of New Development

HE3 Landscape Quality

H12 Residential Infill

ENV 1 Waste Facilities in New Development ENV 5 Drainage and New Development

ENV 6 Connection of Development to Mains System

ENV 21 Landscaping in new development

LN1 The Size and Type of New Dwellings

Page 4

LN2 Design, Layout and Density of New Housing Development

ME1 Safeguarding Biodiversity

ME2 Protection of the Dorset Heathlands

ME6 Flood Management, Mitigation and Defence

T16 Access for those with impaired mobility

Supplementary Planning Documents:

Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD 2015 - 2020

Christchurch Borough Wide Character Assessment 2003

The site is within The Grove character area which has a ”leafy suburb sylvan character” and the CBWCA acknowledges the broad mix of detached house types set back from the roads in large plots. The buildings are generally of similar scale which contributes to a cohesive character and there are mature oak trees in gardens and as street trees. The Assessment also acknowledges that there are “many loft conversions” and the well vegetated character is sensitive to enlargement of the properties or further infill.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) The guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. Paragraph 11 Sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Development plan proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date then permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of approval would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

• Section 5 Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Para.59; “To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.” Para 68; “Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should: c) support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within

Page 5

existing settlements for homes; Para.70; “Plans should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.”

• Section 12 Achieving well-designed places

Para 127 requires that development should add to the overall quality of the area. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (para 130).

Para 131 states that in determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.

• Section 14 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

Para 158 sets out the aim of the Sequential Test Para 163 requires authorities determining planning applications to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and where appropriate applications should be accompanied by a site-specific flood risk assessment. Para 164 States that some applications should not be subject to the Sequential or Exception tests

• Section15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Para 170 advises that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment.

9 Relevant Planning Applications:

10 Pre-app meeting held in October 2018.

11 8/18/1425/FUL - Redevelop site for block of 5 flats with associated parking and amenity space. Withdrawn Sept 2018.

12 No.76 – 07/0188 - Raise ridge height, create first floor and extend property to rear at ground and first floor. Single storey pitched roof side extension Approved May 2007

13 Representations

In addition to letters to neighbouring properties, a site notice was posted at the front of the site in The Grove on 07/12/2018, with an expiry date for

Page 6

consultation of 30/12/2018. Following receipt of amended plans/additional information further letters to neighbours were posted on 07/05/2019 with an expiry date for consultation of 21/05/2019.

32 representations have been received, raising objection and the following concerns have been raised:-

• Substantially out of character with the surrounding area/negative

impact on character of neighbourhood

• Loss of privacy due to overlooking of neighbouring gardens

• Inadequate off-road parking

• Additional congestion through on street parking in The Grove

• Harm to highway safety

• Cramped and overbearing presence

• Precedent for more flats and overdevelopment

• Will diminish the quality and quiet enjoyment of the private garden

amenity spaces of neighbouring residents

• Impact on wildlife

• Disturbance and loss of privacy to no.76 from side access to unit 3.

• Loss of light to no.76

• Biodiversity plan inadequate

• Inadequate information about heights of 3rd floor and bike or bin sheds

• Smell and health and safety concern about proximity of bin store to

no.76

• Loss of fig tree will impact on honey bees

• Unclear how far the building will extend beyond rear of no.76

• Increased pressure on local amenities

• Increase flood risk

• Loss of protected trees

• Noise impact

• Disturbance from construction vehicles

• Boundary fencing required to protect privacy of adjacent properties

14 Consultations

15 Dorset Highways Authority (Received 18/02/2019)

No objection – subject to condition to secure turning & parking construction prior to occupation

16 Natural England (Received 10/12/2018)

No objection – subject to Heathlands Mitigation and to a condition to secure implementation of Biodiversity Mitigation Plan.

Page 7

17 DCC Natural Environment Team

Biodiversity Mitigation Plan certified 16/07/2018

18 Environment Agency (Received 21/12/2018) No objection subject to the Local Planning Authority determining the Sequential Test position. Flood Risk Sequential Test The development may be required to pass the Sequential Test as required by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its associated Practice Guidance. In order to pass the Sequential Test the applicant would need to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in a lower flood risk area within the Local Authority area. The applicant should agree a Sequential Test position with the Local Planning Authority prior to committing further resources into the proposal.

We can confirm from the Flood Risk Assessment submitted, that is based on the Environment Agency’s current flood model, that this confirms that the site is expected to be outside future flood zone 3 and current flood zone 2. However, this is based on the position that current flood zone 2 becomes future flood zone 3. We accept that this position is based on the current Environment Agency flood model not your Authority’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) area which includes flood outlines for climate change (2086 and 2126), which your Authority use for applying the Sequential Test. Therefore, the applicant should consider these flood extents for establishing the Sequential Test position with your Authority prior to considering our position.

Flood Risk Assessment It appears from the submitted drawings that the development footprint, including a bin store, is being extended right to the edge of Flood Zone 2 (i.e. the 1 in 1000 year event). So long as there is no development encroachment onto land below the 1 in 1000 year flood levels we have no concerns in terms of impact on flood risk elsewhere. As we have recently stated for other applications on this site, we would not wish to see development/in filling etc. on existing land below 5.03mAOD (i.e. the 1000 year flood level). You may feel that a planning condition is included to ensure that this requirement is met. We note the proposed finished ground floor of 5.5mAOD and confirm that this is acceptable for the scale and nature of this development.

Notes to applicant are suggested to cover: Sustainable Construction Pollution prevention during construction and waste management

Page 8

19 Constraints Heathlands 5km Consultation Zone SFRA FZ3a 2086 SFRA FZ3a 2126 SFRA FZ2 2086 SFRA FZ2 2126 SSSI Impact Risk Zone Flood Zone 2 (0.1%) Highways Inspected Network Airport Safeguarding Wessex Water Sewer Flooding Tree Preservation Order

20 Planning assessment

21 Site and Surroundings

22 The site is located within an established mainly residential area comprising dwellings of a variety of scales and design. The area has a mature, established character, with dwellings generally set back behind enclosed front gardens with low walls/hedges along the frontages and long rear gardens.

23 No.74 is a detached bungalow on the west side of The Grove opposite the

junction with Elm Avenue. There are two detached bungalows to the south and no.76 is a two storey detached dwelling with pyramidal roof form to the north of the site. An Oak street tree is located in front of the left corner of the site and the front of the site comprises a gravelled parking area bounded by trees and hedging.

24 Levels drop from the front of the site to the rear and there are a number of

preserved trees in the long rear gardens of nos.74 and 76.

25 Key issues

Principle of Development 26 Both paragraph 14 of the NPPF, and KS1 of the Local Plan place a

presumption in favour of sustainable development. This site falls within the urban area of Christchurch, identified as a main settlement in Policy KS2 of the Local Plan, being a sustainable location where development is supported.

27 The Council’s Planning Policy Manager advises that “The main policy issue

here relates to flood risk. The 2009 SFRA identifies this site as being (part) within flood zone 2 and zone 3a (2126 undefended scenario). It appears however that the development itself - that is the dwellings - are all sited within Flood Zone 1, and have safe means of access/egress onto The Grove, again within Zone 1.”

28 “I note that the applicant's flood risk consultant takes an incorrect approach to

the sequential test by claiming it is required but that there are no alternative

Page 9

sites as this is a redevelopment. This is a rather nonsensical approach and not supported by national planning policy. However, as the dwellings are to be sited in Zone 1, my conclusion is that the sequential test does not need to apply here, and I therefore have no objection to this application”.

29 Following the publication of the Housing Delivery Test, the Christchurch Local

Plan area cannot currently demonstrate a five year land supply with a 20% buffer applied. This proposal, whilst only making a small contribution to the housing supply, would offer the provision of 4 dwellings within a sustainable location. Para 68 of the NPPF states;

30 ‘Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting

the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should: c) support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes;

31 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that where policies which are most important

for determining the application are out of date (given the five year housing land supply, the policies are out of date according to footnote 7). In such cases, planning permission must be granted unless policies in the Framework provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposals or “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole”. In this particular case, where the conclusion is the site is not within an area of flood risk, the footnote 6 to para.11 of the NPPF is not thereby engaged.

32 The assessment of whether any adverse impacts significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits of approving the scheme will be assessed in the report below.

Impact on character and appearance of surrounding area

33 The Grove contains a variety of dwelling sizes and types and a building of 2-storey scale with accommodation in the roof form would not appear incongruous in this context. The proposed building would be read in the street scene against the adjacent dwelling at no.76. This is a large two storey dwelling with substantial depth and the proposed development replicates the general proportions of this neighbour.

34 It is noted that the property to the south at no.72 is a bungalow. The siting of a

single storey dwelling against a larger 2-storey property is considered to be similar to the current relationship between no.74 and no.76 and such a relationship was accepted by the granting of planning consent 07/0188 (para. 12 above).

35 The depth of the proposed building would be partially screened from views to

the north by no.76 but would be evident above the properties to the south in views from The Grove and Stour Way. Having regard to the staggered nature

Page 10

of the two storey element on the south side of the proposed building and that these views are interrupted by street trees and the bungalows themselves, the depth and size of the new building is not considered to be of such prominence to be significantly harmful to the street scene or the character of the area.

36 4 parking spaces are provided to the front of the site and the layout and

retention of hedgerow screening helps to mitigate the visual impact of this parking area in the street scene.

Impact on neighbour’s living conditions

37 The ridge and eaves height of the proposed building is similar to that of no.76,

and the proposal includes a modest dormer in the front facing roof slope and rooflights in the side facing roof slopes. Due to the hipped-roof configuration which leans the bulk of the roof in-away from the boundaries, and the stepped arrangement of the two storey elements the proposal is not considered to be overly dominant or oppressive on the adjacent properties.

38 The proposed building would project approximately 2m beyond the rear of the

dwelling at no.76 and having regard to the extended rear patio at no.76, subject to appropriate boundary treatment it is not considered that the proposed building would have any significant impact on the amenities enjoyed at the rear of that property. Although the proposal would impact on a ground floor window in the side elevation of no.76 facing the site, this is a secondary window to a room served by an opening in the rear elevation.

39 The two storey element of the proposed building is approximately level with the

rear elevation of no.72. The single storey element would project a further 1m and is off-set from the boundary with No.72. The proposed building would not interrupt a 45-degree line taken from the rear openings of either No.72 or No.76, maintaining an acceptable outlook from the rear of these neighbours over their back gardens.

40 With regards to privacy the main living room spaces to Units 2 & 3 are to the

ground floor and would not cause a substantial loss of privacy with suitable boundary treatments in place. The main living spaces to Units 1 & 4 have their outlook to the front and would be approximately 33m distant to No.83 opposite which is currently a surveyor’s practice.

41 The scheme creates a number of rear-facing bedroom windows at 1st floor

level and above. This is a common residential relationship seen across the surrounding area and is acceptable. Side-facing windows at 1st floor and above are limited to secondary openings and non-habitable rooms and rooflights at 2nd floor. The scheme has been designed to minimise privacy impact to neighbours and is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

42 Given the orientation, and its position on the plot, the proposed building is not

considered to raise significant issues of massing or significant loss of light or amenity to the neighbouring properties in The Grove, or other properties

Page 11

adjoining the site to the rear.

Parking Provision

43 The intensification of residential use arising from the increased number of units on the site would result in additional activity and vehicular movements at the site. Subject to conditions to secure appropriate boundary treatment and landscaping it is not considered that these movements would give rise to any significant disturbance that would justify refusal of the proposed dwellings.

44 The Highways Authority have raised no objection to the proposed development

in terms of road safety, subject to a condition on the consent regarding completion and maintenance of the parking area at the new dwelling (Condition 5).

45 The site is located within a sustainable urban area and is within walking distance of public transport. The provision of off-road parking for four vehicles at the front of the proposed dwellings, is considered to be acceptable due to the sustainable location, and as such conforms with Local Plan Policy KS12.

Landscaping & amenity space

46 The proposed dwellings would share a substantial rear garden which would

provide a generous amount of external amenity space at the rear. The proposed garden measures approximately 125 meters in depth by 26 meters in width. Therefore, the amenity space for the proposed dwellings is considered to be acceptable.

47 The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Method Statement. This indicates a no dig surface across the whole front garden. The report also confirms that while the bin collection area will be sited within the RPA of Oak (T1), this will comprise paving slabs laid on top of the no-dig driveway. The Council’s Arboricultural officer has advised that confirmation of the position of the soakaway and the installation of ground protection in the forecourt area needs to be finalised during a pre-commencement meeting. A condition (#5) to secure tree and ground protection prior to commencement of development is recommended.

48 The development will not result in the loss or damage to any significant tree or

other landscape feature. Further details of the proposed boundary treatment has been conditioned to be submitted and agreed by the LPA (Condition 6).

Heathlands Mitigation

49 Appropriate Assessment – The application site lies within 5km but beyond

400m of Dorset Heathland which is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and as a European wildlife site. The proposal for a net increase in residential units, in combination with other plans and projects and in the absence of avoidance and mitigation measures, is likely to have a significant

Page 12

effect on the site. It has therefore been necessary for the Council, as the appropriate authority, to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications for the protected site, in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

50 The appropriate assessment has concluded that the mitigation measures set out in the Dorset Heathlands 2015-2020 SPD can prevent adverse impacts on the integrity of the site. The SPD strategy includes Heathland Infrastructure Projects (HIPs) and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM). In relation to this development the Council will fund HIP provision via the Community Infrastructure Levy but SAMM, which forms the second strand of the strategy, requires that contributions be secured via s106 from all development where there is a net increase in dwellings. The strategic approach to access management is necessary to ensure that displacement does not occur across boundaries.

51 A completed Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted agreeing to offset harm to Dorset Heathland by way of a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) payment in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD 2015-2020 (January 2016). Without this contribution towards avoidance measures the Council cannot be certain that the development will not result in harm to European sites contrary to policy ME2, NPPF paragraphs 175-177 and the Habitats Regulations.

Other Issues 52 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – as the proposal is for a net increase of

three additional dwellings, a contribution toward CIL is required. Planning balance 53 The council encourages sustainable development. This seeks to strike a

balance between the economic benefits of the development, the environmental impacts on the area and the social benefits derived by the creation of much needed housing.

54 The Council does not have a five year housing land supply and there will be a need to boost supply and delivery in response to this. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF confirms that permission should be granted unless any harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits. The public benefits of providing further housing in a sustainable location, addressing the Council’s housing shortfall is given due weight.

55 The scheme complies with Policy HE2 in being compatible with or improving its

surroundings in relation to nearby properties including minimising general disturbance to amenity and in its impacts on the character of the area. The scheme has investigated the biodiversity of the site and agreed mitigation for the impacts in a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan, the implementation of which is proposed to be a condition of approval (#3). The scheme provides parking in accordance with the adopted guidelines in the Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset Residential Car Parking Study (2011) and has not generated objections from

Page 13

the Highways Authority in respect of highway safety or the capacity of the network.

56 The environmental factors are therefore neutral. There is therefore no harm which significantly & demonstrably outweighs the economic and social benefits of providing housing in a sustainable location and the scheme is recommended for approval.

Recommendation

57 GRANT permission with the already completed unilateral undertaking for SAMM’s required under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the following conditions, which are subject to alteration/addition by the head of planning provided any alteration/addition does not go to the core of the decision:

Conditions 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later

than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

ASP.18.112.001 A Block and Location Plan.pdf 28/03/19 ASP.18.112.002 E Site Plan.pdf 01/05/19 ASP.18.112.100 A Proposed Plans.pdf 28/03/19

ASP.18.112.101 A Proposed Plans.pdf 28/03/19

ASP.18.112.102 Proposed Bike & Bin Store Plans & Elevations 08/11/19 ASP.18.112.200 A Proposed Elevations.pdf 28/03/19

ASP.18.112.201 C Proposed Site Sections.pdf 01/05/19 ASP.18.112.202 Proposed Sections 08/11/18

ASP.18.112.300 A Proposed Street Scene.pdf 28/03/19 3. The development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the

Biodiversity Mitigation Plan dated approved by DDCNET 16/07/2018 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure protected species are not harmed during construction and their habitats are protected during and post the construction phase.

4. The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the proposed

development shall be as specified in the approved application unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of design and amenity.

Page 14

5. The dwellings shall not be occupied until such time as they are connected to a

public sewerage system.

Reason: This is required to ensure a satisfactory system of foul drainage for the approved dwellings.

6. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on Drawing Number ASP.18.112.002E must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

7. Other than for the purposes of tree protection, before any equipment,

materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree and Landscape Case Officer and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the methods of protecting trees on and adjacent to the site during development in accordance with the Tree Report, ref no: JH/AIA/18/037/4, dated 02/05/19 and Tree Protection Plan, ref no: JH-TPP-28-6-18.1 Rev 4, dated May 2019, . The confirmed measures of tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered or excavations made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: This meeting is required prior to commencement of development in the interests of tree protection and to accord with Policies HE2 and HE3 of the Core Strategy.

Informative Note

1. This planning consent does not convey the right to enter land or to carry

out works affecting or crossing the boundary with land which is not within your control without the land owners consent. This is however, a civil matter and this planning consent is granted without prejudice to this.

This permission is granted under Town and Country Planning Legislation and does not alter or impinge upon the rights of adjoining landowners under common law or under the Party Wall Act 1996. If any part of the development is physically attached to, or relies for support on, the neighbouring property the consent of the relevant landowners/occupiers will need to be obtained under the provisions of the Party Wall Act 1996.

2. This consent is subject to a Unilateral Undertaking dated 28/01/2019, to

mitigate the impacts of the development on Dorset Heathlands in accordance with Policy ME2 and The Dorset Heathland Planning Framework 2015 - 2020.

Page 15

3. The applicant needs to be aware that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be applied to this development. The Council will shortly be issuing a CIL Liability Notice following the grant of this permission which will provide information on the applicant’s obligations.

4. Sustainable design and construction should be implemented across the

proposed development. This is important in limiting the effects of and adapting to climate change. Running costs for occupants can also be significantly reduced. Water efficiency measures should be incorporated into this scheme. This conserves water for the natural environment and allows cost savings for future occupants. The development should include water efficient systems and fittings such as: dual-flush toilets; water-saving taps; water butts; showers and baths. Greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting should also be considered.

5. Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to

minimise the risks of pollution and detrimental effects to the water interests in and around the site. Such safeguards should cover the use of plant and machinery, oils/chemicals and materials; the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles; the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds and the control and removal of spoil and wastes. The Environment Agency recommend the applicant refer to their Pollution Prevention Guidelines, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pollution-prevention-for-businesses

6. In accordance with the waste hierarchy, the applicant should consider

reduction, reuse and recovery of waste in preference to offsite incineration and disposal to landfill during site construction. If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. If the applicant requires more specific guidance it is available on the Environment Agency website https://www.gov.uk/how-to-classify-different-types-of-waste

7. The applicant is advised that bats are protected in the UK by Schedule 5

of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Part 3 of the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and they are also protected by European and International Law. Work should proceed with caution and if any bats are found, all work should cease, the area in which the bats have been found should be made secure and advice sought from National Bat Helpline (tel: 0345 1300 228). website https://www.bats.org.uk/our-work/national-bat-helpline

Background Documents: Case File – 8/18/3129/FUL

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the

relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website.

Page 16

The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability. Case officer: Kevin Chilvers

Bikes

Red brick plinth

Timber cladding

Flat roof

Bins

ASP.18.112.102

1:100

74 The Grove, Christchurch

*

27/09/18

PLANNING

MS

Addis Homes

Proposed Bike & Bin Store Plans & Elevations

PMDescriptionDateRev

REVISIONS:

By

Checked by :

Drawn by :

Date :

Scale @ A3:

c

DRAWING No: REVISION:

1. The contents of this drawing are copyright.

2. Scaled drawing for Planning purposes only.

3. Contractors must verify all dimensions and report any discrepancies

4. Lower ground construction/ retaining structure to be structural

5. Electrical layouts to be agreed with client & added to drawing

6. Drawings to be read in conjunction with specification.

ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT - CDM

PROJECT & DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT STAGE:

NOTES:

17a High Street, Christchurch,

Dorset, BH23 1AB

01202 473222

www.aspirearchitects.co.uk

info@aspirearchitects.co.uk

© Aspire Architects Ltd

before putting work in hand or making any shop drawings.

engineers design.

Proposed Bike & Bin Store Plans & Elevations 1:100

0 10m

CW

Side Elevation Front ElevationSide Elevation

Rear Elevation

Floor Plan

ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT - CDM

17a High Street, Christchurch,

Dorset, BH23 1AB

01202 473222

www.aspirearchitects.co.uk

info@aspirearchitects.co.uk

© Aspire Architects Ltd

Sun Path - Equinox March 21st

0 10m

March 21st 9:00am

March 21st 9:00am

Existing

Proposed

March 21st 12:00amMarch 21st 3:00pm

March 21st 12:00am March 21st 3:00pm

ASP.18.112.400

1:200

74 The Grove, Christchurch

*

27/09/18

PLANNING

MS

Addis Homes

Sun Path Study - Equinox

REVISIONS:

Checked by :

Drawn by :

Date :

Scale @ A3:

c

DRAWING No: REVISION:

PROJECT & DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT STAGE:

CW

ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT - CDM

17a High Street, Christchurch,

Dorset, BH23 1AB

01202 473222

www.aspirearchitects.co.uk

info@aspirearchitects.co.uk

© Aspire Architects Ltd

Sun Path - Longest Day June 21st

0 10m

June 21st 9:00am

June 21st 9:00am

Existing

Proposed

June 21st 12:00am June 21st 3:00pm

June 21st 12:00am June 21st 3:00pm

ASP.18.112.401

1:200

74 The Grove, Christchurch

*

27/09/18

PLANNING

MS

Addis Homes

Sun Path Study - Longest Day

REVISIONS:

Checked by :

Drawn by :

Date :

Scale @ A3:

c

DRAWING No: REVISION:

PROJECT & DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT STAGE:

SR

ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT - CDM

17a High Street, Christchurch,

Dorset, BH23 1AB

01202 473222

www.aspirearchitects.co.uk

info@aspirearchitects.co.uk

© Aspire Architects Ltd

Sun Path - Shortest Day December 21st

0 10m

December 21st 9:00am

December 21st 9:00am

Existing

Proposed

December 21st 12:00am

December 21st 3:00pm

December 21st 12:00am December 21st 3:00pm

ASP.18.112.402

1:200

74 The Grove, Christchurch

*

27/09/18

PLANNING

MS

Addis Homes

Sun Path Study - Shortest Day

REVISIONS:

Checked by :

Drawn by :

Date :

Scale @ A3:

c

DRAWING No: REVISION:

PROJECT & DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT STAGE:

SR